Tap Node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only that the tap targets the node's center; it says nothing about whether the tap waits for the UI to settle, what happens if the node is stale/offscreen, what the stealth flag does, or what the tool returns on success or failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the action and the input source front-loaded. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the core purpose is conveyed. But for an unannotated, 0%-documented mutation tool, the definition omits device targeting, the meaning of stealth, and failure behavior (e.g., node not found or not tappable), leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description usefully explains where the required 'node' object comes from, but it says nothing about 'device' or the 'stealth' boolean (default true), which is the most opaque parameter and would be the prime candidate for explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (tap) plus the precise target (center of a node) and it names the sibling tools that produce the node object (find_nodes / find_nodes_on_screen). This lets an agent place it in the find-then-act workflow, though it does not explicitly contrast with the plain tap or tap_text siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'a node returned by find_nodes / find_nodes_on_screen', which tells the agent the expected input provenance. However it never states when to prefer this over tap (coordinates), tap_text (text match), or long_press, nor any precondition such as requiring a prior find call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.